I guess i'll point out that the big crunch hypothesis has pretty much been given up by the scientific community in favour of a continually expanding universe. . . Making your entire argument moot.
@thegodlessatheist I think our latest finds have would show that there are a series of crunches but that expansion is greater force. I suppose I should amend my description to say that it would apear that God has breathed more than once and that when God inhales the power of his word continues to expand the majesty of all existance. I think that would fix it. What do you think?
@thegodlessatheist 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Is this about my name? It's about my name isn't it? If his attributes are clearly seen, then they are not invisible. There is no more evidence for your god than for Harry Potter. Tell me I'm wrong.
@thegodlessatheist You are wrong. No man can see God because of our sin. Are you a sinner? Yes. So am I. Have you ever lied, stolen anything or used God's name in vain. Then you are a sinner just like me. Harry Potter did not create anything. God did. Where do you think the universe came from? Where did your hands and feet come from?
@EIGHTYNINENINERS your argument is this: "I don't know. therefore, god". Tell me how that makes any sense. You have deluded yourself into assuming the conclusion without getting any evidence. Let's test it shall we. The bible says that you can move mountains with prayer if you have the faith of a mustard seed, right? Then pray that the word "god" appears in silver letters on the wall of my room. If your god does not interfere and can not be detected, it's the same as him not existing.
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Keep in mind that your question "Where do you think the universe comes from?" is as solid a proof for god than when they said "Where do rainbows come from?" in the middle ages. The unknown is only proof that we don't know, nothing else. Also, the question you meant to ask was "Where did the big bang come from?" because that is where the universe came from.
Well, I don't really agree with you at all and I think you failed to fully understand the video you are responding to and were therefore from my perspective unable to really make a strong rebuttal against it, I must say that I like your personality and your mannerisms.
You've missed quite an important point - the universe is expanding, yes, but it is not slowing down - so, no big crunch - eventually, if humans are still around - we will be looking out from our little place in the Milky Way into a huge void of nothingness - it will be as if we are completely alone - all other signs and evidences of other galaxies and the rest of the universe will be flying away from us faster than the speed of light until it all cools off and - poof - nothing is left.
@THECuBANBEAzT life for most of us mammals starts right around the vagina. On top of that it is one of my perfered body parts for exploration and discovery. I'm going to take that comment as a compliment. Thanks for watching my video I'm glad you enjoyed it. God Bless. ; )
It's ok junior they will teach what a simile is in the 4th grade. Until then I can understandstand how this comparison might go over your heard. Keep your chin up, stay in school.
There certainly is alot I don't know. We have witnessed acceleration. If the expanding universe theory is correct, I should amend my stance from breath of God to Word of God. Once a word is out there is no reason for it to return.
However with the existance on blackholes it is certain that at points atleast the universe does collapse on itself.
The difference between us is that I admit to a limited understanding. You think you have it all figured out. Which one of us is self deluded?
Certainly the big bang starts with expansion. The question is is there also contraction. But that is of little concern to me. I believe your problem is with the idea of God? If not I'm curious to what exact idea I had in this video (other than the possiblilty of a "Big Crunch" that you concider rubbish.
If I'm not mistaken my only mistake was a confusion as to what extent God may inhale. (not a pot reference, but your welcome to have fun with it)
It actually starts with expansion, it is not an explosion, as such, (a subtle difference I'm sure lost on you).
But as you say, it matters little. "But that is of little concern to me". you would believe, because you want to, regardless of any kind of eveidence, and your purposfully not looking. Thats fine.
If your intent on keeping your dummy, regardless of the harm it's doing your teeth, then we have little to discuss.
You know I actually said "expansion", but I'm certain such the subtle difference was lost on you.
It appears you have a chip on your shoulder. I can't remove that for you, maybe someday God will "if of course God is actually into that sort of thing". Until then I hope life treats you well.
How do you explain the fact that if you had been born in Pakistan, the chances are very high you would now be a muslim, instead of a christian?
You would believe in a totally different god figure, and be equally devout.
How do you explain so many people on the same globe believing in completely different deities, surely if there was one god, he would not allow these different gods?
If you want to talk about regional understanding of God (watch my atheists video) I would say it is just that Large picture is that all the Abramic faiths paint a very similar picture and If we compare Krishna to Jesus many of others do as well. There are far more similarities in religions than difference. As for the differences if God allows us to learn for ourselves certainly we will all be at different levels of understanding.
I don't like the term supernatural. There is much about "nature" that we are still trying to learn. It is better to say that there are things beyond my current understanding or our current understanding. Does it make sence to say that we came from nothing? I think even Daniel Dennett would say no. The very fact that there is existance means ther must be a creative force. Do I have the mind to fully comprend its intention No, but I do see the evidence of its work all around me.
Quite, there is still much to learn, its just that invoking a god figure to fill in the gaps really accomplishes nothing, explains nothing, and if anything stifles further enquiry.
Just because something is beyond your present understanding doesnt mean it isnt understandable, or that others dont understand it.
Im sure if you look a little harder youll find that you too are perfectly capable of understanding these things. Cont.----
The universe did not come from nothing; your listening to too many believers, this comes from there half baked understanding, or downright ignorance, or even miss information.
The Big bang, (now accepted as reality) initial state is a singularity, certainly not nothing, quite the contrary, it is everything, crunched down to a point of infinite density. To invoke god at this point is nothing more than inventing a reason where none is needed, that explains nothing. Cont.----
Existence needs no deity, the creative forces are perfectly explainable.
I find the reason people dream up these easy explanations is because they are unwilling to look any farther into the real explanations. Usually they have been brought up, in a theistic mindset, and to believe in a supernatural entity.
So far you haven't said anything about science that I don't know.
You did say,
"Just because something is beyond your present understanding doesnt mean it isnt understandable, or that others dont understand it."
My question is what knowledge do you ahve that allows you to discount the idea of a creator? It appear to me that you are the one who is unwilling to look forward. I'm just keeping an open mind.
I really dont know, I merely said invoking a god figure to fill the gaps in knowledge stifles further enquiry, I dont know how much you do this.
But surely if one attributes a phenomenon to a god that has answered the question? Why go on with any further questioning?
It was you who stated there were things beyond your understanding; Im assuming you said that because this is where youre placing your god, to fill the gap in your understanding. Cont.---
If you said it for another reason Id be glad to hear it, to clear up the misunderstanding.
No absolutely Im open minded, but Im only open minded to evidence, and up to now I have found not one jot of evidence. On the other hand the scientific knowledge now known is quite incredible, and explains nearly all the things once attributed to god, there is no reason to doubt any that are left will be explained in time. Cont.----
EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS WRONG!! How do I know this because we have found the texts that were kept at the council, and the texts have a record of all the decisions and alterations that the council decided to make.
Well, we know that isnt the case right from the off. Even the most sceptical scholars, dont attempt to push the gospels much beyond 100AD.
It was however, as you sort of state, complied, at Nicaea, into what we would today, recognize as the bible. Before hand, it was really just word of mouth conversations.
.decided which ones portrayed him as the son of god, then altered those to make it eaiser to manipulate the masses with them.
Except for the ones who viciously argued the contrary though right? Your conspiracy theory doesnt really follow. They argued over Christs divinity at length. Ranging from man, to being, superior to Yahweh. If they all agreed to make him the son of God, before hand, Nicaea, wouldnt of been necessary.
However, my biggest issue with your conspiracy theory, is that it's, beyond bizarre, into the realm of making, fuck all sense!
If, the purpose of the bible was, to control the masses. Then, why exactly, did the Catholic Church make it illegal to own a bible? Not just illegal actually, but punishable, by execution. And why was mass, in Latin, until relatively recently?
They make up this book, for control, and go to great lengths, to stop people reading it?
1). we know for a fact that the Bible was not compiled until about 300C.E. because the texts themselves have been carbon dated, as well as periodically dated, and the catholic church agreed to this date in2003 when the texts were analyzed
2). you are correct in that there was a long debate on just that topic, but in the end the vote was taken and they agreed to make him the son of god. the texts imply that one of the major reasons for this was to control the masses...
3). lastly the reasons you list to disprove my theory are all actually evidence supporting my theory. there are still things in the bible that go against the mind control that many church powers wanted, it was not until later that owning such books became illegal and that was done as a way to keep the masses uninformed. ...
...this way they would listen far more blindly to whatever the priests told them. mass was in Latin for the same reason the less that the masses know the easier it is to control them. so as I see it you are then one with the issues. honestly how could you believe that the church NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO READ THEIR WON BOOK, was possibly a good thing. WTF?!
You seem to think this 300 years later thing is a death nail in christianity.
Example, lord of the rings movies came out in 2001, 2002 and 2003. In 2010 new line cinema will release the lord of the rings collection. All three movies, complilled into the one set.
Does that mean the lord of the rings only came out in 2010?
Eh naw, the compilation came into existance at that point, the films themselfs, existed way before that date. Just as the books, existed before the bible.
Because you are trying to push the conspiracy theroy that the christ story was intended for control. My issue is if that was there purpose why would they go to length to make it difficult for the text to be readily available. Surely they would inforce it upon the public to maintain control?
Why not insert a verse in there saying:
''and the lord thy god said bow to the catholic church''?
''we know for a fact that the Bible was not compiled until about 300C.E''
Knowone disputes that. The cannon was agreed upon at nicea and the bible as we know it was formed. There is no argument atall there. You seem to think that is some huge revelation.
The gospels however, existed prior to that, including the gnostic ones infact. They simply did not become, the ''bible'' until nicea. They where seperate books. As the bible is just that, a collection of books.
1.) the dating of pre-Naeziah texts is obscure at best we have relativistic dates that may or may not be correct
2.) the earliest of the gospels are those from Paul how did not write about Jesus until 50 C.E. one would think that if Jesus played such a massive role he would have published immediately most of the other gospels did not appear until after 70 C.E. ...
as such these cannot be relied upon as even first hand accounts, as the authors would had to have been practically children at the time this suggests that the gospels were not even written by the apostles.
3.) additionally there is not an external source that even mentions the existence of Jesus until 400 C.E. there are no first hand accounts thus the bible must have generated in its entirety at Naeziah. which is further evidence of its functionality ...
4.) you did not respond to the point that the reason it would have been banned is that they would not want the people to be able to think about their book, it was made more as a guideline for the priests to use. if people are unable to read the book, or understand the prayers they are far easier to herd ...
5.)''and the lord thy god said bow to the catholic church''? first off even a 5th century village idiot would be able to spot the fallacy in that, and second the name Catholic Church wasn't adopted until several centuries later.
6.) additional evidence of this mass control is shown in that the papal hierarchy is not mandated by the bible but rather by the early church, thus showing the bible was to be a guideline for the priests to use and not something for the masses to have.
I would like to point something out to saint27573. You do not "know" that anything in the bible is true. In fact odds are its not. the bible was written around 300 C.E. at the council of Nazeaih. At this council, the heads of the then christian church got together and picked from among the 32 known gospels about Jesus. decided which ones potrayed him as the son of god, then altered those to make it eaiser to manipulate the masses with them.
in a 2005 archeological expedition the texts from the Nazeaih were uncovered. these are accounts from the scribes how were charged with keeping an account of all the happenings of the council. Inside is documentation on everything from the votes on wat gospels get to be in the bible to the vote on weather or not Jesus was a divine figure.
hahah you think ur smarter than God but u not ! if you read the bible all the way through you would know God is called the father of lights knowing the end from the beginning and telling us in advance thing that would happen and guess wht every thing he said is true even the part about you thinking urself to be wiser than him . your so funny coz u think u belittle christians you only proof what we already belive from the bible .
I'm being serious; what is profound about the Genesis account? Why would God divinely inspire people to say something wrong or stupid? I can understand that a primitive man might not comprehend how molecules work, but why would he think earth was water before it was earth? That's ludicrous. If God were inspiring the Genesis account how would the author get the formation of earth completely backwards?
You kind of bend over backwards to fit the bible in to reason.
I'll give you the simple version. In Genisis we start with a formless earth. God brings order, order brings life. God's job is that of creation. We are created in the image of God because we have the ability to continue to bring order and continue to create and protect life. This is the reason for existance.
Compair this creation acount to the ones before it and you will see why it stuck. They are stories about chaos creating gods.
The point that Phil was making is that he proposed a much much more convincing begging for the universe than God himself.
God did not mention any real scientific facts in the bible or quran. If Phil can write a more reasonable bible than your bible then you should probably worship him instead of Jesus. One min of his video is more useful for humanity than the Quran and the Bible combined together.
I understood Phil's stance and I gave him credit. He did a great job of telling us how we understand the birth of the universe, Howver I don't think he attempted to answer the why of creation. Genisis does that. Spend a little time with a few holy books. If don't like the Abrahamic ones try the Gita or maybe just read some Karen Armstrong. I bet if you spent more than one minute with these books you might learn something yourself. God Bless.
Certainly it is possible that I may have used the term word of God in deriving my understanding. I admit I don't have it all figured out. It is likely that our opinion about how the universe works will also change. Like everyone else I'm just trying to help put the pieces of the puzzle together.
I'm glad that you can wonder in our existance, that is a beautiful thing.
5:30 Even if I were to concede your points about the greatness of conscience and increasing complexity as time goes on, how and why would you assume it was a christian god doing the breathing? Why not Apollo or Ra?
So if you want to take a theist philosophy on the birth/rebirth of the universe that's fine and poetic, but why attach a particular religion to it? That just makes you (not you specifically) argue with someone who attaches a different religion to you even though you mostly agree.
I wouldn't be apposed to the same connection being made with other religious understanding. I spoke christian because the tone for conversation was set christian. On top of that my upbringing is somewhere between christianity and judaism. So i talk in the words I understand. I don't claim perfection of absolute knowledge. Why should I oppose biblical understanding?
That is because you are a reasonable and have no absolute certainty. Your world view gives you a sense of your place in the universe and recognise your religion is a product of your upbringing.
Others do not. They know they are right and anyone who says differently must be converted or killed. These are the dangerous ones and their number is large. Theism is harmless, religion is not. Religion has a scary certainty to it: "not only is there a god, but I know what he wants us to believe and do."
Not random. Best of. That which works within the context of this earths' limitations is what you see. Solar energy is weak. Wind energy is weak. You exist because of a long 'trunk and branches' of 'best of' survival. The creationist posit is all wrong. there are no apologies that can save it. humans exist in a definable band between the extreems of mountain tops down to oceans bottom. You are here ONLY because your ancestors survived long enough to reproduce. That's it. Not random. Best of.
If I didn't have a moment for you, why have I given you one? Your time devoted to me is appreciated, too. Thankyou.
But don't assume that atheists/agnostics are selfish. And don't assume that we can't see and appreciate beauty. But to me there is more beauty if it happened naturally rather than if designed.
I was refering to the rebelious child not to you I appologize for the missunderstanding. My point was simply that the bible is much more meaningful as a text if we read it that way. Nothing more. I have many selfless atheist friends. actually watch my "ATHEISTS!!!" video. I think you will like it.
My personal self discipline is up to me and me alone.
I'm athiest/agnostic. I don't which one I would be defined as, I don't care.
To sum me up, I haven't noticed any suggestion of a god. There is no god. But that's an assumption. There might be one, or many, etc. But the manmade offerings really sell the notion short if there really was one. But by allowing this consideration, that moves me into the agnostic camp. I'm comfortable in whatever label, as long as it's not an 'assumer'.
I just read your last comment about caring parents that give their kids a little bit of grace to allow their kids to mature intellectually, independently. I fully agree. But your Bible says in Deut 21 that "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son... ...all the men of the town should stone him to death".
That's rather drastic, and at odds with your last comment. Which parts of the Bible are relevant and which are not?
It is better to die than it is to live a self centered life. Selfishness is true torment. However it is best for a parent to be merciful. It takes time for a child to develope past selfishness.
Get a concordance compare the amount of times mercy is applied when talking about God to the amount of times that judgement is applied.
Further after punishment or wrath, look to see how often mercy is the end result.
Keep in mind a good parent can get anger, but they must remain just.
I just read what you wrote earlier. 'I'm lying to myself'. In my personal selfdiscipline, if I find myself doing that, I give myself a slap (metaphorically).
Pure science is something I aspire to in my thinking, pure objectivity etc.
That's where I feel completely uncomfortable considering prevalent God theories realistically. They don't seem to go through this process.
The bible itself speaks of the "lying pens of the scribes" in Jeremiah."
Of couse I would say these are the lies of men.
As a Deist I would say that Nature speaks plenty about God. The bible and other religious text speaks about how we have understood God. They are fantastic starting points for contemplating the devine.
Technically I was talking from a historic perspective about the Hebrew Torah. I've herd of D (the Deuteronomists), P (the Preasthood, Y (the Yahwehists), and E(the Elohimist). I understand that the torah is comprised of the thoughts of these 4 groups.
P. wrote Gensis 1.
Q. is a source document for new testament gospels, Primarily Mathew and Mark. I've read some of Bart Ehrman.
If we wanted to talk about creation with christians John is really the guy who did that. Not Q.
Your observations are appreciated. But don't make assumptions. Don't declare yourself to accommodate science whilst accommodating assumptions. You can't do both.
That's the bit that shows you acknowledge science, but are not fully prepared to accommodate it. Not even a 'little bit'.
"There's got to be a tiny bit of purpose". Explain how that's not an assumption.
Science isn't against God. Ironically it might present the path.
But Science's 'God' resembles none of the manmade offerings.
You're lying to yourself. We all make assumptions. My assumption is based on existance, love and concious. I assume something at the beginning. I assume something greater exists than my self. I like Spinoza's God, and Tilich's God just as much as I like Moses, and Paul's. Certainly God is bigger than man has imagined thus far.
I have conciousness and I have love. For those I am thankful plain and simple. Quatifiably I only have a slightly larger amount of evidence than say the evidence that scientist have for blackholes. For know "God" is the simplest term for that which I should be expressing my gratitude. By simple I mean the majority of people should understand what I am talking about.
"How could purely random force bring something so beautiful as consciousness about"
It's not random, any more than a star's shape is random. It's the result of the physics; a chain of events, each leading inexorably to the next. It's the result of a blind, stupid search -- little more than trial and error -- operating over UNIMAGINABLY VAST SPANS OF TIME (~3.5 billion years). The reality of how we got here is far more magnificent than the authors of the Bible could have imagined.
I agree, we are all bound together by a common set of laws and a physical universe. I also agree that man fails when he attempts to define "all" that is devine. However I don't think failure is grounds for discarding our attempt to do so. We should continue to work with we have, and continue to refine our definitions of words like "god".
"We should continue to work with we have [..] to refine our definitions of words like 'god'."
As social animals, we evolved facilities to 'read' others. This requires that we assume others have minds like ours; we project. The brain discriminates poorly, and applies this to ANYTHING that appears self-motivated. We used to think the EVERYTHING was controlled by man-like intelligences (wind, rain, streams, the Sun, moon, etc.) It's anthropomorphication of nature. That's all gods have ever been.
"anthropomorphication of nature. That's all gods have ever been"
Tell that to Spinoza or Tillich. Your definition of God may be severly lacking, but what about theirs. I would say that nature points in the direction of a God, but it does not tell us this God has any human qualities. We use human qualities in our definitions to help understand, as I said before our definitions tend to fall short.
"Notice before we agreed that nature programs truths into us."
Where in the hell did we agree that? I could spent 10 comments covering everything that's wrong with that statement, but you still haven't responded to any of my previous comments, so I won't waste my breath.
Certainly it appears there is a big gap between what I am arguing and what you are arguing. I have given you a few sources in comments to help bridge the gap from my side. I would be happy to read a few of your sources. Mabey if we have a better understanding source of each others arguement we would stuggle less with each others language.
Why is that necessary? I'm arguing using logic and well established facts. Or are you one of those nut jobs who denies facts so you so you can believe a 6000 year old Earth?
I don't need to let somebody else do my arguing for me, because I understand the issues well enough to do it myself.
"we would stuggle less with each others language."
I'm not struggling with your language in the slightest.
you are certainly missunderstanding my language or you would not be grouping my opinions in there with those of "Kent Hovind". I am not a fundimentalist christian. You are arguing against those guys. I doubt you knkow of Spinoza, Tolle, or Tillich. Your trying to fit a circle through a square. The pieces don't match. You are attacking a point of view I do not posess. I am tired of your Ad-hom attacks. Open your eyes. Learn to tell the differnce.
"you are certainly missunderstanding my language or you would not be grouping my opinions in there with those of 'Kent Hovind'"
Are you incapable of actually quoting me and responding specifically, in your own words, to anything I've said? Why the hell do you keep referencing Kent Hovind? I never mentioned him.
"I am not a fundimentalist christian. You are arguing against those guys."
I'm arguing against SPECIFIC THINGS YOU SAID, which I quoted directly.
For instance, you made some clueless statements about the relationship between abiogensis and evolution, which I corrected. Rather than respond, you simply ditched that line of reasoning, throw out 10 more questions, tell me to read X, accuse me of lumping you in with Y, etc. It's a 'shit shoveling' strategy; winning a debate by attrition.
I prefer actual discourse, where you respond factually and/or logically to my statements, directly, in your own words, just as I have been doing with you.
I missed the Abiogenisis comment sorry about that. I have responded to it. Furth If you continue to heap "shit" accusations on my arguement, I have no choice but to shovel. You and I both have better things to do with our time than shovel shit. I think you will agree with me there.
"You and I both have better things to do with our time than shovel shit. I think you will agree with me there."
Agreed. ;)
Note, I don't bother trying to discuss anything with nuts like VenomFangX, because they are completely irrational. It's pointless. I felt compelled to respond to your video because you seem genuinely thoughtful, capable of appreciating a logical argument. If only you could let go of your forgone conclusions when evaluating the evidence. ;)
Taking a part of a quote and applying a arguement used to attack fundimentalism is not the same as understand the whole of a statement and responding to the statement. You are nit picking a few words, not actual ideas. I keep mentioning Hovind to point out that I am not a young earth creationist, So far you have failed to notice this. Your battling a straw man that I didn't create. and attacking me for ideas I have not expressed.
"Science works with faith. It usually uses the term theory."
"How could purely random force bring something so beautiful as consciousness about"
I mischaracterized NONE of these statements. Rather than support them, you ditch them in favor of a new lines of spurious reasoning. You win by wearing me out.
"o unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Is a statement made by many faiths. If we apply this statement in the natural world we see it to be true. This statement historically came from contemplation of "a higher power". It points us towards a higher purpose. It helps us to better understand the meaning of the religious word Love.
Why do we love?
That should help you with the statements above, also it should simplify the questions I asked earlier.
1st why place no value on subjective truth. Most of our truths started as subjectively. Over time we work to get them closer to something that could be concidered objective. We know very few completely objective truths.
2nd Excellent job of attempting to take a bit of subjectivity out of the christian statement. You might be onto something.
Finally is survival value really the purpose of empathy. If so why would a man jump on a grenade to save his comrade?
Subjective truths are monumentally important to humans.
Objectively, we are a vanishingly thin layer of surface scum on a dust mote. Insignificant. When the Sun becomes a red giant and steriles the Earth, it won't care, the Universe won't care. BUT WE WILL. WE MATTER TO US. Our value is not an objective trait of the Universe like the speed of light, but that doesn't make it ANY less important to us.
Of course it is! We're the latest in a 3.5 BILLION YEAR CHAIN of survivors. Core features like empathy have survival value almost by definition.
The capacity to put yourself in someone's shoes, to see a situation from their perspective, is a HUGELY valuable and versatile adaptation. It facilitates communication, compassion, AND improves the ability to deceive, out-maneuver peers in social situations, and out-smart opponents in battle.
Because caring for your young, and your tribe, has TREMENDOUS survival value. Our predecessors who didn't, died. We remain. That's how natural selection works.
I would die to save either of my children. There's an overwhelming attachment that takes place which no non-parent can understand. It's a profound experience subjectively, but objectively it's merely a biological mechanism. It can fail, and sometimes does, especially with mothers suffering postpartum depression.
My wife is currently working through postpartum depression. She worries about being able to protect the baby and she worries that excess time spent with the child will cause her to loose contact with friends. Neither responce is a failure in my wife's ability to love. Infact her ability to love puts her in the situation.
I would say we love each other because we are all connected by something greater than self. This is evident, and it is the core of understanding devinity.
"My wife is currently working through postpartum depression [...] Neither responce is a failure in my wife's ability to love"
I didn't say postpartum depression (which my wife had, too) causes attachment failure, I said it CAN be a cause. It was an off hand-example, not even relevant to my point. Yet you single it out for refutation, using anecdotal evidence, sample size: 1. *lol*
It appears that we need to determine relevance for subjective experience in life. Love is certainly a subjective experience, it can not be objectively defined. Does this mean love does not exist?
"Love is certainly a subjective experience, it can not be objectively defined. Does this mean love does not exist?"
Of course it can be objectively defined (see: dictionary).
As for subjective experiences 'existing', I don't know what to make of that question, given that I just wrote 500 characters about how important subjective reality is to humans.
"we love each other because we are all connected by something greater than self"
But *what*? What "something"? A magic alien? A cheese danish? What is it? Why is there no evidence of a 'greater than self' entity?
The evolutionary explanation is simple, logical, fits all available evidence, fits well supported theory, and significantly, doesn't require you to postulate an invisible, supernatural 'greater than self' entity/field/force/being/whatever.
I would say that love is one evidence. It is clear to me that this connection is deeper than your mechanical explanation. Its complexity is more than a simple genetic program. However I admit that I can not get much past that point at this time. Does that mean I should stop pursuit? I don't think so for know I call it something. because that is the simplest answer (occam's razor). Many call this something God. I often use the word "God" because the majority understand my meaning.
"It is clear to me that this connection is deeper than your mechanical explanation."
If it's so "clear", why can't you articulate it?
Yes, love is deeply meaningful to us *subjectively*, but it's also demonstrably a function of the brain. It can be SLICED right out of your head. Try watching a family member die of Alzheimers. As their brain goes, THEY GO, in direct proportion to cell loss. There is no supernatural source of consciousness; it's a function of the three pound organ in your head.
You can certainly slice the memory of those you have loved out of a persons head, but that does not mean the love itself is gone. There are certainly mechanical limitations to the brain. Damage to the brain can cause us to loose our presence. However if we look a recoverable injuries to the brain we can see that over time a persons presence and ability to love often returns.
I admit this statement came out somewhat circular. Let me clairify my premise.
Love is proof that there is a "higher power" than self. Self has limitations, it will die. If the body is injured so is self. However the the love of a persons life, weather it be for work or family, or fellow man. Will continue. Together this act of love propels all the progress you spoke about in earlier comments. On occation it is misguided. However overall We see possitive results from love.
Because it lingers around like magic pixie dust, right?
"Love is proof that there is a 'higher power' than self."
Obviously when you use the word 'proof' you mean that in the *religious* sense, which is basically "Hey, sounds good to me, makes me happy, must be true!"
"the love of a persons life, weather it be for work or family, or fellow man. Will continue."
Fuzzy headed nonsense. You're conflating the emotion with acts inspired by it.
But if you're *asking* for reading material, I would recommend The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. It's a thoughtful and sympathetic investigation into a wide range of human beliefs (Sagan is far more kinder to religion than I am) and one of the best written explanations of what science *is* (i.e. not a body of facts or religion, as you seem to believe, as evidenced by your 'sliding scale' analogy at the start of this video).
Humans believe in gods, ghost, souls, auras, chi, astrology, numerology, phrenology, palmistry, voodoo, UFOs, ESP, pyramid power, magnetic healing, and MUCH, MUCH MORE.
Science is not a body of knowledge, it is A METHOD for overcoming our innate capacity to believe bullshit. It relies on skeptical peer review of evidence, reproducibility of results, etc. Deciding what's real and what's not by how HAPPY something makes you feel, or what PURPOSE it gives your life, is ANTITHETICAL to science.
I am aware that science answeres answers how question and not why questions. It is intersting that the nature of humans is to start with the question why. We start asking this question almost as soon as we can communicate. Why is at the core of our being. When a child asks us "why do we use the scientific method?". We explain to them the purpose. If it had no purpose we would not use it. Purpose has nothing to do with what makes us happy, it has to do with why something works.
"Purpose has nothing to do with what makes us happy, it has to do with why something works."
Sure it does. You NEED us to have a 'higher' purpose, because it makes you unhappy to think we don't have one.
Biologically, we have EXACTLY ONE purpose: reproduce. That's it. In fact, once we're done reproducing, nature is done with us, which is why we begin the decline toward death so shortly after reaching reproductive age. Any other purpose we make for ourselves.
"I am aware that science answeres answers how question and not why questions."
Science answers HOW questions by answering WHY questions.
HOW do apples fall? On Earth, they accelerate at ~9.8 m/s until they reach terminal velocity (a function of air density) and/or hit the ground, whichever comes first.
WHY do apples fall? Not enough room to explain ;) (the spacetime they inhabit is not uniform, because of the Earth's mass, so the apple's future lies in the center of the Earth...)
"It would appear that the nature of this problem is certainly circular."
No it's not. The problem is merely that you think nature requires purpose. It doesn't. Matter forms self replicating forms because it can, just as it collects into balls of gas called stars because it can. There is no purpose to it.
I Think you pretty much proved my point here (about science). Your answer adresses the how of existance very well, but it doesn't come close to adressing why. You are claiming that the ultimate question to why does not exist. This goes against the essence of human nature. This was the point I made.
"You are claiming that the ultimate question to why does not exist."
No, the question exists. The answer does not, or at least, the it is currently not accessible to us.
Virtually EVERYTHING previously attributed to gods -- wind rain, death, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. -- is now know to be natural. Continuing to fill in holes in our scientific knowledge with "God did it" spackle is embarrassing. It neglects the ABYSMAL failure rate of such explanations (virtually 100%).
Notice the same people you accuse of making the "God did it" falacy are also the ones who searched and found the better explanations. God did it should never be a final answer. Futher notice that scientific explanation has still only answered the how of these phenomina. The why to any of these questions could still be God. Once again read Spinoza.
"The why to any of these questions could still be God."
You have yet to establish that the "why" question even HAS an answer. There may be NO "why". So you're putting the cart before the horse when you not only assume there IS a "why", but that reason for is a magic alien. And of course, then you have to explain "why" the magic space alien is here in the first place.
So because things are beautiful that means there is some greater meaning?
Why not simply see beauty as an evolutionary adaption? It's a way to assign preferences to an emotion. Is it random chance that people tend to think places beautiful to live are close to water? It seems more highly likely that we are hard-wired to understand the benefits of living near water and turn that into an attractive emotion.
"So because things are beautiful that means there is some greater meaning?"
Right. Theists reverse cause and effect. They think the Earth was made to fit us, when the evidence shows we evolved to fit the Earth. For instance, blue is the most common favorite color. Not because God made us like blue, then made the sky blue to please us, but because WE EVOLVED ON A PLANET WITH BLUE SKY (an accident of atmospheric composition).
"we are hard-wired to understand the benefits of living near water"
Aye. Our ancestors who didn't enjoy living next to water were less likely to reproduce.
Basically, everything makes perfect sense when seen within the framework of evolution (such as why virtually every human culture is preoccupied with sex and violence), but requires MOUNTAINS of laborious rationalizations to make any sense as a 'perfect creation' of an all powerful super being (whatever the heck that being IS, anyway).
Certainly man fails when it comes to defining God. On top of that the term perfect should really only be used for singular aplications. Men like Kent Hovind, in my opinion, are misguided. It is foolish to dictated what we learn through the looking glass of what we believe, however it is not foolish to redifine are faith as we learn. The process of learning does not erase all notions of devinity, only the ones that are not infact devine.
"however it is not foolish to redifine are faith as we learn"
If your faith requires evidence, or can be modified by evidence, it's not really faith, is it? In other words, if you have EVIDENCE of something, it NO LONGER REQUIRES FAITH. It exits the realm of religion and enters the realm of science.
The whole notion of 'faith' is antithetical to science.
Science works with faith. It usually uses the term theory. A good theory is very likely, infact almost definite. However we still admit to holes in what we know. In science it is ok to change opinions about faith-theory as our knowledge changes. Many would say the same should be true with religion.
"In science it is ok to change opinions about faith-theory as our knowledge changes. Many would say the same should be true with religion."
It's not 'ok' in science, it's REQUIRED.
In science, YOU START WITH THE FACTS. Theories must explain the facts. If a fact doesn't fit, the theory MUST be revised.
In religion, you START WITH THE THEORY (e.g. God created the Universe). If a fact doesn't fit, you CAN'T revise the theory, so you just come up with desperate and convoluted rationalizations.
You are defining christian science as explained by fellows like Kent Hovind. This not religion. All faiths that survive over time change with modern understanding. Even the roman catholic church has yielded to scientific understanding (flat earth) and more human social structures (abolition of slavery). Change happens in religion.
"No if Abiogenisis is proven to be a faulty theory much of current evolutionary theory will change."
Sorry, bro, but that's ignorant. Abiogenesis = origin of lire. Evolution = development of complex life. If it turns out life was created by an alien name Fred, rather than abiogenesis, that changes nothing about evolution
Evolution is a fact just like atoms and gravity. Evolutionary *theory* is like atomic theory, an explanatory framework that attempts to show how the evolution *works*.
"Science works with faith. It usually uses the term theory."
The word 'theory' does not imply uncertainty in science. When we talk about atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc. it doesn't suggest uncertain about the existence of atoms, gravity, germs, or evolution. A theory is an explanatory framework for established facts.
More importantly, scientists do NOT accept theories on 'faith'.
If we take for example evolutionary theory. We are sure much of it is true, however we theorize on topics like say Abiogenisis. Is Abiogenisis tested? No if Abiogenisis is proven to be a faulty theory much of current evolutionary theory will change. So do many scientists have faith in abiogenisis for the time being or not?
"do many scientists have faith in abiogenisis for the time being"
It's not faith, abiogenesis is SUGGESTED BY THE EVIDENCE. The oldest fossils (3.5 billion years old) are extremely simple life forms. We know life began in some simpler form before then. We know natural mechanisms produce organic molecules. That life is natural, LIKE EVERY OTHER KNOWN PHENOMENON IN THE UNIVERSE, is the simplest explanation by far, so Occam's Razor selects for it.
Abiogenisis is the best explanation of those that we have. That does not mean we have all the the explanations. Abiogenisis is a good theory. My point is only that it is untested. Hence for know we have faith in the threory, but we know our faith in it is subject to change. It is good to continue testing the theory, it is not a good idea to throw it away because we don't have all the pieces. This is my point.
"My point is only that it is untested. Hence for now we have faith"
Faith
n.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The theory of abiogenesis is LOGICALLY DERIVED FROM MATERIAL EVIDENCE, so despite being untested, it is NOT faith.
There is NO EVIDENCE of God, and it creates more logical paradoxes than time travel, so it REQUIRES faith. Believe is entirely emotional: it feels good, gives us purpose, allows for justice, provides immortality, security, love, etc.
Faith n. definition 1. is confidence or trust in a person or thing.
There is certainly an act of faith in the scientific method. according to the primary definition. At the very least science has faith in the ability of Logic as a means for determinining truth.
To clairify the term faith I think you are using is better defined as "blind faith". I, like yourself, don't see merit in blind faith.
I explicitly clarified WHICH meaning I was using to avoid these silly semantics games. You were CLEARLY using definition #2 when you referred to believing in abiogenesis *DESPITE LACK OF TESTING* as "faith". To claim you merely meant strong belief, irrespective of evidence, is disingenuous.
Yes, both theist and scientists have strong beliefs, but scientific beliefs are (1) supported by EVIDENCE AND LOGIC, and (2) subject to radical alteration.
I will agree with you that people change there mind about science much faster than they do about God. Of course most have a stronger emotional tie to religion than they do with science. However this does not negate the fact that the religious mind does change and will continue to. I Think this wraps up the term faith. I will continue in you other comments with the notion of "a higher power"
I accidentally removed your comment about Science has done something, religion has done nothing. Reply annd remove are way to close together. I'll still answer below.
Religion has done plenty. The concept of empathy and love was passed from generation to generation by religion. A higher power is at the core of the begining of the human exploration of philosophy. Not to mention most phylanthropy is done in the name of God.
I could argue for the evils of science (Hiroshema). I could tell you that Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of Death in the US. (Both true) but we both know science and medicine should not be dismissed because of these occurances.
*answered easier
DeadlyRedRing 7 months ago
The question "Do science and religion mix" can be easier answered when it is rephrased to say "do science and mythology mix."
DeadlyRedRing 7 months ago
I guess i'll point out that the big crunch hypothesis has pretty much been given up by the scientific community in favour of a continually expanding universe. . . Making your entire argument moot.
thegodlessatheist 8 months ago
@thegodlessatheist I think our latest finds have would show that there are a series of crunches but that expansion is greater force. I suppose I should amend my description to say that it would apear that God has breathed more than once and that when God inhales the power of his word continues to expand the majesty of all existance. I think that would fix it. What do you think?
squitmaa 8 months ago
@thegodlessatheist 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse
EIGHTYNINENINERS 8 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Is this about my name? It's about my name isn't it? If his attributes are clearly seen, then they are not invisible. There is no more evidence for your god than for Harry Potter. Tell me I'm wrong.
thegodlessatheist 8 months ago
@thegodlessatheist You are wrong. No man can see God because of our sin. Are you a sinner? Yes. So am I. Have you ever lied, stolen anything or used God's name in vain. Then you are a sinner just like me. Harry Potter did not create anything. God did. Where do you think the universe came from? Where did your hands and feet come from?
EIGHTYNINENINERS 8 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS your argument is this: "I don't know. therefore, god". Tell me how that makes any sense. You have deluded yourself into assuming the conclusion without getting any evidence. Let's test it shall we. The bible says that you can move mountains with prayer if you have the faith of a mustard seed, right? Then pray that the word "god" appears in silver letters on the wall of my room. If your god does not interfere and can not be detected, it's the same as him not existing.
thegodlessatheist 8 months ago
@EIGHTYNINENINERS Keep in mind that your question "Where do you think the universe comes from?" is as solid a proof for god than when they said "Where do rainbows come from?" in the middle ages. The unknown is only proof that we don't know, nothing else. Also, the question you meant to ask was "Where did the big bang come from?" because that is where the universe came from.
thegodlessatheist 8 months ago
Well, I don't really agree with you at all and I think you failed to fully understand the video you are responding to and were therefore from my perspective unable to really make a strong rebuttal against it, I must say that I like your personality and your mannerisms.
tallblondekid 8 months ago
You've missed quite an important point - the universe is expanding, yes, but it is not slowing down - so, no big crunch - eventually, if humans are still around - we will be looking out from our little place in the Milky Way into a huge void of nothingness - it will be as if we are completely alone - all other signs and evidences of other galaxies and the rest of the universe will be flying away from us faster than the speed of light until it all cools off and - poof - nothing is left.
rictusgate 11 months ago
ur a fucking twat
THECuBANBEAzT 1 year ago 4
@THECuBANBEAzT life for most of us mammals starts right around the vagina. On top of that it is one of my perfered body parts for exploration and discovery. I'm going to take that comment as a compliment. Thanks for watching my video I'm glad you enjoyed it. God Bless. ; )
squitmaa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squitmaa there is no god
THECuBANBEAzT 1 year ago
You, sir, have a voice... and a face, for radio :) I enjoyed your video very much. Thank you.
GreyRadean 1 year ago
First I'm like why did this video get only 2 stars, then I'm like ohh half way through.
redice1024 1 year ago 3
we question for the guy in the video.... were u there?
shanefilan08 2 years ago
i`ve given up o.O
eikedeus 2 years ago
6 year old tells u how to live ur life and u listen? rooofl, idiot
ryanb9 2 years ago
It's ok junior they will teach what a simile is in the 4th grade. Until then I can understandstand how this comparison might go over your heard. Keep your chin up, stay in school.
squitmaa 2 years ago
Wow, how ignorant is this guy.
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T THE FIRST IDEA OF WHAT YOU SPEAK.
Sat laughing away, in his completely self deluded state.
Anyone can talk any colour of shite one wants to, and then say, "I think that's acurate".
NOT a single fact!!!!!
This is this deluded guys own pet theory.
How does he explain the expansion speeding up, as we now know? (well some of us do), with his in and out breath of god rubbish.
How can anybody fall for this guff???
martiangrundy 2 years ago
There certainly is alot I don't know. We have witnessed acceleration. If the expanding universe theory is correct, I should amend my stance from breath of God to Word of God. Once a word is out there is no reason for it to return.
However with the existance on blackholes it is certain that at points atleast the universe does collapse on itself.
The difference between us is that I admit to a limited understanding. You think you have it all figured out. Which one of us is self deluded?
squitmaa 2 years ago
Yes I agree with you, it certainly seems that way. A little research can remedy that situation though.
I don't for one instant think you've any intention of amending your stance.
If on the other hand you'd like to sensibly discuss any of the points, I'd be delighted.
BTW, "the expanding universe theory", better known as the big bang, IS CORRECT, I'm astonished you are so unsure.
What parts are you unsure on?
As for self delusion, everyone is guilty to some degree, it's just the extent.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Certainly the big bang starts with expansion. The question is is there also contraction. But that is of little concern to me. I believe your problem is with the idea of God? If not I'm curious to what exact idea I had in this video (other than the possiblilty of a "Big Crunch" that you concider rubbish.
If I'm not mistaken my only mistake was a confusion as to what extent God may inhale. (not a pot reference, but your welcome to have fun with it)
squitmaa 2 years ago
It actually starts with expansion, it is not an explosion, as such, (a subtle difference I'm sure lost on you).
But as you say, it matters little. "But that is of little concern to me". you would believe, because you want to, regardless of any kind of eveidence, and your purposfully not looking. Thats fine.
If your intent on keeping your dummy, regardless of the harm it's doing your teeth, then we have little to discuss.
Good day.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
You know I actually said "expansion", but I'm certain such the subtle difference was lost on you.
It appears you have a chip on your shoulder. I can't remove that for you, maybe someday God will "if of course God is actually into that sort of thing". Until then I hope life treats you well.
God Bless
squitmaa 2 years ago
NO my friend, no chips on my shoulder. The very idea.
So you don't want to discuss any of the issues then?
OK, thats fine.
All the Best.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Which issue in particular would you like to discuss?
squitmaa 2 years ago
I'm easy.
But how about we keep it simple for starters?
How do you explain the fact that if you had been born in Pakistan, the chances are very high you would now be a muslim, instead of a christian?
You would believe in a totally different god figure, and be equally devout.
How do you explain so many people on the same globe believing in completely different deities, surely if there was one god, he would not allow these different gods?
I'll be intrigued to hear you response.
All the Best.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
Actually I'm not a christian, I'm a Deist.
If you want to talk about regional understanding of God (watch my atheists video) I would say it is just that Large picture is that all the Abramic faiths paint a very similar picture and If we compare Krishna to Jesus many of others do as well. There are far more similarities in religions than difference. As for the differences if God allows us to learn for ourselves certainly we will all be at different levels of understanding.
How's that.
squitmaa 2 years ago
That wasnt the point, but it seems now youve proclaimed, (in very imprecise terms) that youre a deist the point is pretty much moot.
To say merely youre a deist doesnt really say anymore than you believe in a superior supernatural being. So on those terms Ill ask you.
Why do you believe that there is anything supernatural at all.
There is not and has never been any evidence whatsoever, of any kind of supernatural activity or entity. Cont.----
martiangrundy 2 years ago
---Cont.
If your god isnt a god of any of the books, then what is he, and how do you know, what do you know that I dont?
I wonder do you believe in ghosts, Father Christmas, Auras?
martiangrundy 2 years ago
I don't like the term supernatural. There is much about "nature" that we are still trying to learn. It is better to say that there are things beyond my current understanding or our current understanding. Does it make sence to say that we came from nothing? I think even Daniel Dennett would say no. The very fact that there is existance means ther must be a creative force. Do I have the mind to fully comprend its intention No, but I do see the evidence of its work all around me.
squitmaa 2 years ago
Quite, there is still much to learn, its just that invoking a god figure to fill in the gaps really accomplishes nothing, explains nothing, and if anything stifles further enquiry.
Just because something is beyond your present understanding doesnt mean it isnt understandable, or that others dont understand it.
Im sure if you look a little harder youll find that you too are perfectly capable of understanding these things. Cont.----
martiangrundy 2 years ago
---Cont.
The universe did not come from nothing; your listening to too many believers, this comes from there half baked understanding, or downright ignorance, or even miss information.
The Big bang, (now accepted as reality) initial state is a singularity, certainly not nothing, quite the contrary, it is everything, crunched down to a point of infinite density. To invoke god at this point is nothing more than inventing a reason where none is needed, that explains nothing. Cont.----
martiangrundy 2 years ago
----Cont.
Existence needs no deity, the creative forces are perfectly explainable.
I find the reason people dream up these easy explanations is because they are unwilling to look any farther into the real explanations. Usually they have been brought up, in a theistic mindset, and to believe in a supernatural entity.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
How does my stance stiffle my inquiries?
So far you haven't said anything about science that I don't know.
You did say,
"Just because something is beyond your present understanding doesnt mean it isnt understandable, or that others dont understand it."
My question is what knowledge do you ahve that allows you to discount the idea of a creator? It appear to me that you are the one who is unwilling to look forward. I'm just keeping an open mind.
squitmaa 2 years ago
I really dont know, I merely said invoking a god figure to fill the gaps in knowledge stifles further enquiry, I dont know how much you do this.
But surely if one attributes a phenomenon to a god that has answered the question? Why go on with any further questioning?
It was you who stated there were things beyond your understanding; Im assuming you said that because this is where youre placing your god, to fill the gap in your understanding. Cont.---
martiangrundy 2 years ago
---Cont.
If you said it for another reason Id be glad to hear it, to clear up the misunderstanding.
No absolutely Im open minded, but Im only open minded to evidence, and up to now I have found not one jot of evidence. On the other hand the scientific knowledge now known is quite incredible, and explains nearly all the things once attributed to god, there is no reason to doubt any that are left will be explained in time. Cont.----
martiangrundy 2 years ago
---Cont.
The open minded starting point is NOT to believe in a god. One should work from the premise that until there is proof a thing should not be believed.
Whereas the believer works from the premise, unless something is completely explained, god must have done it.
Im sorry but this is not being open minded.
What evidence do you have for believing in a deity?
Ta Ta.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS WRONG!! How do I know this because we have found the texts that were kept at the council, and the texts have a record of all the decisions and alterations that the council decided to make.
draconous999 2 years ago
the bible was written around 300 C.E
Well, we know that isnt the case right from the off. Even the most sceptical scholars, dont attempt to push the gospels much beyond 100AD.
It was however, as you sort of state, complied, at Nicaea, into what we would today, recognize as the bible. Before hand, it was really just word of mouth conversations.
scotsocool 2 years ago
.decided which ones portrayed him as the son of god, then altered those to make it eaiser to manipulate the masses with them.
Except for the ones who viciously argued the contrary though right? Your conspiracy theory doesnt really follow. They argued over Christs divinity at length. Ranging from man, to being, superior to Yahweh. If they all agreed to make him the son of God, before hand, Nicaea, wouldnt of been necessary.
scotsocool 2 years ago
However, my biggest issue with your conspiracy theory, is that it's, beyond bizarre, into the realm of making, fuck all sense!
If, the purpose of the bible was, to control the masses. Then, why exactly, did the Catholic Church make it illegal to own a bible? Not just illegal actually, but punishable, by execution. And why was mass, in Latin, until relatively recently?
They make up this book, for control, and go to great lengths, to stop people reading it?
WTF?
scotsocool 2 years ago
to respond individually:
1). we know for a fact that the Bible was not compiled until about 300C.E. because the texts themselves have been carbon dated, as well as periodically dated, and the catholic church agreed to this date in2003 when the texts were analyzed
2). you are correct in that there was a long debate on just that topic, but in the end the vote was taken and they agreed to make him the son of god. the texts imply that one of the major reasons for this was to control the masses...
draconous999 2 years ago
...
3). lastly the reasons you list to disprove my theory are all actually evidence supporting my theory. there are still things in the bible that go against the mind control that many church powers wanted, it was not until later that owning such books became illegal and that was done as a way to keep the masses uninformed. ...
draconous999 2 years ago
...this way they would listen far more blindly to whatever the priests told them. mass was in Latin for the same reason the less that the masses know the easier it is to control them. so as I see it you are then one with the issues. honestly how could you believe that the church NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO READ THEIR WON BOOK, was possibly a good thing. WTF?!
draconous999 2 years ago
forgive the mistype in my response to #1I meant 2005
draconous999 2 years ago
You seem to think this 300 years later thing is a death nail in christianity.
Example, lord of the rings movies came out in 2001, 2002 and 2003. In 2010 new line cinema will release the lord of the rings collection. All three movies, complilled into the one set.
Does that mean the lord of the rings only came out in 2010?
Eh naw, the compilation came into existance at that point, the films themselfs, existed way before that date. Just as the books, existed before the bible.
scotsocool 2 years ago
''honestl
Because you are trying to push the conspiracy theroy that the christ story was intended for control. My issue is if that was there purpose why would they go to length to make it difficult for the text to be readily available. Surely they would inforce it upon the public to maintain control?
Why not insert a verse in there saying:
''and the lord thy god said bow to the catholic church''?
Its ludacris
scotsocool 2 years ago
''we know for a fact that the Bible was not compiled until about 300C.E''
Knowone disputes that. The cannon was agreed upon at nicea and the bible as we know it was formed. There is no argument atall there. You seem to think that is some huge revelation.
The gospels however, existed prior to that, including the gnostic ones infact. They simply did not become, the ''bible'' until nicea. They where seperate books. As the bible is just that, a collection of books.
scotsocool 2 years ago
I would point out several flaws in your response
1.) the dating of pre-Naeziah texts is obscure at best we have relativistic dates that may or may not be correct
2.) the earliest of the gospels are those from Paul how did not write about Jesus until 50 C.E. one would think that if Jesus played such a massive role he would have published immediately most of the other gospels did not appear until after 70 C.E. ...
draconous999 2 years ago
as such these cannot be relied upon as even first hand accounts, as the authors would had to have been practically children at the time this suggests that the gospels were not even written by the apostles.
3.) additionally there is not an external source that even mentions the existence of Jesus until 400 C.E. there are no first hand accounts thus the bible must have generated in its entirety at Naeziah. which is further evidence of its functionality ...
draconous999 2 years ago
4.) you did not respond to the point that the reason it would have been banned is that they would not want the people to be able to think about their book, it was made more as a guideline for the priests to use. if people are unable to read the book, or understand the prayers they are far easier to herd ...
draconous999 2 years ago
5.)''and the lord thy god said bow to the catholic church''? first off even a 5th century village idiot would be able to spot the fallacy in that, and second the name Catholic Church wasn't adopted until several centuries later.
6.) additional evidence of this mass control is shown in that the papal hierarchy is not mandated by the bible but rather by the early church, thus showing the bible was to be a guideline for the priests to use and not something for the masses to have.
draconous999 2 years ago
I would like to point something out to saint27573. You do not "know" that anything in the bible is true. In fact odds are its not. the bible was written around 300 C.E. at the council of Nazeaih. At this council, the heads of the then christian church got together and picked from among the 32 known gospels about Jesus. decided which ones potrayed him as the son of god, then altered those to make it eaiser to manipulate the masses with them.
draconous999 2 years ago
and where is your valid info or proof of this?
leifpetersen 2 years ago
in a 2005 archeological expedition the texts from the Nazeaih were uncovered. these are accounts from the scribes how were charged with keeping an account of all the happenings of the council. Inside is documentation on everything from the votes on wat gospels get to be in the bible to the vote on weather or not Jesus was a divine figure.
draconous999 2 years ago
hahah you think ur smarter than God but u not ! if you read the bible all the way through you would know God is called the father of lights knowing the end from the beginning and telling us in advance thing that would happen and guess wht every thing he said is true even the part about you thinking urself to be wiser than him . your so funny coz u think u belittle christians you only proof what we already belive from the bible .
saint27573 2 years ago
How is God's breath fantastic?
I'm being serious; what is profound about the Genesis account? Why would God divinely inspire people to say something wrong or stupid? I can understand that a primitive man might not comprehend how molecules work, but why would he think earth was water before it was earth? That's ludicrous. If God were inspiring the Genesis account how would the author get the formation of earth completely backwards?
You kind of bend over backwards to fit the bible in to reason.
andymcgaha 3 years ago
I'll give you the simple version. In Genisis we start with a formless earth. God brings order, order brings life. God's job is that of creation. We are created in the image of God because we have the ability to continue to bring order and continue to create and protect life. This is the reason for existance.
Compair this creation acount to the ones before it and you will see why it stuck. They are stories about chaos creating gods.
squitmaa 3 years ago
The point that Phil was making is that he proposed a much much more convincing begging for the universe than God himself.
God did not mention any real scientific facts in the bible or quran. If Phil can write a more reasonable bible than your bible then you should probably worship him instead of Jesus. One min of his video is more useful for humanity than the Quran and the Bible combined together.
metalgee 3 years ago
I understood Phil's stance and I gave him credit. He did a great job of telling us how we understand the birth of the universe, Howver I don't think he attempted to answer the why of creation. Genisis does that. Spend a little time with a few holy books. If don't like the Abrahamic ones try the Gita or maybe just read some Karen Armstrong. I bet if you spent more than one minute with these books you might learn something yourself. God Bless.
squitmaa 3 years ago
Sorry mate. There is no big crunch the universe is increasing in its rate of expansion indefinitely.
Conscience is simply an emergent quality like snow crystals are from water.
We all like to feel important. A rock is unable to comprehend the beauty of the universe, we are. Is that not enough importance for you?
Personally I find the real universe far more wondrous than any stories made up by primitive peoples
SupportExtantDodo 3 years ago
Certainly it is possible that I may have used the term word of God in deriving my understanding. I admit I don't have it all figured out. It is likely that our opinion about how the universe works will also change. Like everyone else I'm just trying to help put the pieces of the puzzle together.
I'm glad that you can wonder in our existance, that is a beautiful thing.
Peace be with you.
squitmaa 3 years ago
5:30 Even if I were to concede your points about the greatness of conscience and increasing complexity as time goes on, how and why would you assume it was a christian god doing the breathing? Why not Apollo or Ra?
So if you want to take a theist philosophy on the birth/rebirth of the universe that's fine and poetic, but why attach a particular religion to it? That just makes you (not you specifically) argue with someone who attaches a different religion to you even though you mostly agree.
keddaw 3 years ago
I wouldn't be apposed to the same connection being made with other religious understanding. I spoke christian because the tone for conversation was set christian. On top of that my upbringing is somewhere between christianity and judaism. So i talk in the words I understand. I don't claim perfection of absolute knowledge. Why should I oppose biblical understanding?
squitmaa 3 years ago
That is because you are a reasonable and have no absolute certainty. Your world view gives you a sense of your place in the universe and recognise your religion is a product of your upbringing.
Others do not. They know they are right and anyone who says differently must be converted or killed. These are the dangerous ones and their number is large. Theism is harmless, religion is not. Religion has a scary certainty to it: "not only is there a god, but I know what he wants us to believe and do."
keddaw 3 years ago
Your God is evil bastard.
Alexberia 3 years ago
Damnit, I wish I had that ascent. Too bad i'm South African.
Loneeeey 3 years ago
Do keep in mind as you study that god is not a fact. That should help a great deal.
dwightaintright65 3 years ago
Not random. Best of. That which works within the context of this earths' limitations is what you see. Solar energy is weak. Wind energy is weak. You exist because of a long 'trunk and branches' of 'best of' survival. The creationist posit is all wrong. there are no apologies that can save it. humans exist in a definable band between the extreems of mountain tops down to oceans bottom. You are here ONLY because your ancestors survived long enough to reproduce. That's it. Not random. Best of.
dwightaintright65 3 years ago
Selfishness? Don't assume.
Why am I having this discussion with you?
If I didn't have a moment for you, why have I given you one? Your time devoted to me is appreciated, too. Thankyou.
But don't assume that atheists/agnostics are selfish. And don't assume that we can't see and appreciate beauty. But to me there is more beauty if it happened naturally rather than if designed.
A sunset is better than a painting of a sunset.
Anyway, it's been good talking.
Very sleepy.
Take care.
Thanks.
naganokumas 3 years ago
I was refering to the rebelious child not to you I appologize for the missunderstanding. My point was simply that the bible is much more meaningful as a text if we read it that way. Nothing more. I have many selfless atheist friends. actually watch my "ATHEISTS!!!" video. I think you will like it.
Sleep well.
squitmaa 3 years ago
My personal self discipline is up to me and me alone.
I'm athiest/agnostic. I don't which one I would be defined as, I don't care.
To sum me up, I haven't noticed any suggestion of a god. There is no god. But that's an assumption. There might be one, or many, etc. But the manmade offerings really sell the notion short if there really was one. But by allowing this consideration, that moves me into the agnostic camp. I'm comfortable in whatever label, as long as it's not an 'assumer'.
naganokumas 3 years ago
I just read your last comment about caring parents that give their kids a little bit of grace to allow their kids to mature intellectually, independently. I fully agree. But your Bible says in Deut 21 that "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son... ...all the men of the town should stone him to death".
That's rather drastic, and at odds with your last comment. Which parts of the Bible are relevant and which are not?
naganokumas 3 years ago
It is better to die than it is to live a self centered life. Selfishness is true torment. However it is best for a parent to be merciful. It takes time for a child to develope past selfishness.
Get a concordance compare the amount of times mercy is applied when talking about God to the amount of times that judgement is applied.
Further after punishment or wrath, look to see how often mercy is the end result.
Keep in mind a good parent can get anger, but they must remain just.
squitmaa 3 years ago
I just read what you wrote earlier. 'I'm lying to myself'. In my personal selfdiscipline, if I find myself doing that, I give myself a slap (metaphorically).
Pure science is something I aspire to in my thinking, pure objectivity etc.
That's where I feel completely uncomfortable considering prevalent God theories realistically. They don't seem to go through this process.
naganokumas 3 years ago
What is your personal self discipline?
Do you aproach the notion of beauty or love so objectively?
squitmaa 3 years ago
As you admit, the Bible is written by men, yet it speaks about understanding God. This, at best, is a manmade appreciation of God.
naganokumas 3 years ago
I recommend we go elsewhere for a chat. I'll go via your personal account.
naganokumas 3 years ago
A true God would be disappointed in assumers.
A false God would be happy to assume them.
naganokumas 3 years ago
A good parent allow there child to learn what they are capable of learn. They do not expect perfection.
A good parent is patient. They understand that minds developement.
A good parent finds joy watching the children grow. They do focus on there short comings.
Why would we assume that a Good God would be any different?
squitmaa 3 years ago
Prove to me how 'Satan' didn't guide the pens of the Bible. In the Bible it says that Satan will use tricks to deceive you.
Don't you think the world around you, nature, etc, is 'God's' work? Why not read that book instead?
Which book has more chance of being tainted by Satan?
Science is an impartial investigation of nature.
I agree, nature is fantastic, awesome, inspiring, devastating, tedious, exciting, etc. But you don't have to follow a creed to notice it.
naganokumas 3 years ago
The bible itself speaks of the "lying pens of the scribes" in Jeremiah."
Of couse I would say these are the lies of men.
As a Deist I would say that Nature speaks plenty about God. The bible and other religious text speaks about how we have understood God. They are fantastic starting points for contemplating the devine.
squitmaa 3 years ago
I mean it. Investigate 'Q', it will help you to understand early Christian books.
Hopefully it will help you understand the Emperor has no clothes.
But only empty emperors have no clothes.
naganokumas 3 years ago
Technically I was talking from a historic perspective about the Hebrew Torah. I've herd of D (the Deuteronomists), P (the Preasthood, Y (the Yahwehists), and E(the Elohimist). I understand that the torah is comprised of the thoughts of these 4 groups.
P. wrote Gensis 1.
Q. is a source document for new testament gospels, Primarily Mathew and Mark. I've read some of Bart Ehrman.
If we wanted to talk about creation with christians John is really the guy who did that. Not Q.
squitmaa 3 years ago
squitmaa.
What a surprise. I live in Japan, it's 8:30. And I'm a little drunk. This is the only circumstance when I feel compelled to respond to youtube.
Anyway, I'm ready to go to bed, but while we're both awake, how are you?
naganokumas 3 years ago
Doing ok. Thanks for asking.
squitmaa 3 years ago
Do your homework on Q rather than P.
naganokumas 3 years ago
Your observations are appreciated. But don't make assumptions. Don't declare yourself to accommodate science whilst accommodating assumptions. You can't do both.
That's the bit that shows you acknowledge science, but are not fully prepared to accommodate it. Not even a 'little bit'.
"There's got to be a tiny bit of purpose". Explain how that's not an assumption.
Science isn't against God. Ironically it might present the path.
But Science's 'God' resembles none of the manmade offerings.
naganokumas 3 years ago
You're lying to yourself. We all make assumptions. My assumption is based on existance, love and concious. I assume something at the beginning. I assume something greater exists than my self. I like Spinoza's God, and Tilich's God just as much as I like Moses, and Paul's. Certainly God is bigger than man has imagined thus far.
squitmaa 3 years ago
Hey suitmaa!
Those are some very cool and meaningful thoughts... just one question: do you have any evidence for your claims?
poejavlo 3 years ago
I have conciousness and I have love. For those I am thankful plain and simple. Quatifiably I only have a slightly larger amount of evidence than say the evidence that scientist have for blackholes. For know "God" is the simplest term for that which I should be expressing my gratitude. By simple I mean the majority of people should understand what I am talking about.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"How could purely random force bring something so beautiful as consciousness about"
It's not random, any more than a star's shape is random. It's the result of the physics; a chain of events, each leading inexorably to the next. It's the result of a blind, stupid search -- little more than trial and error -- operating over UNIMAGINABLY VAST SPANS OF TIME (~3.5 billion years). The reality of how we got here is far more magnificent than the authors of the Bible could have imagined.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I agree, we are all bound together by a common set of laws and a physical universe. I also agree that man fails when he attempts to define "all" that is devine. However I don't think failure is grounds for discarding our attempt to do so. We should continue to work with we have, and continue to refine our definitions of words like "god".
squitmaa 3 years ago
"We should continue to work with we have [..] to refine our definitions of words like 'god'."
As social animals, we evolved facilities to 'read' others. This requires that we assume others have minds like ours; we project. The brain discriminates poorly, and applies this to ANYTHING that appears self-motivated. We used to think the EVERYTHING was controlled by man-like intelligences (wind, rain, streams, the Sun, moon, etc.) It's anthropomorphication of nature. That's all gods have ever been.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"anthropomorphication of nature. That's all gods have ever been"
Tell that to Spinoza or Tillich. Your definition of God may be severly lacking, but what about theirs. I would say that nature points in the direction of a God, but it does not tell us this God has any human qualities. We use human qualities in our definitions to help understand, as I said before our definitions tend to fall short.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"I would say that nature points in the direction of a God"
You keep saying that, but have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for it.
"but it does not tell us this God has any human qualities"
Apparently you've never read the Bible. For that matter, you're not familiar with any Earth religion, in any period of history, ever.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"We use human qualities in our definitions to help understand, as I said before our definitions tend to fall short."
That's exactly the kind of desperate, convoluted rationalization I was referring to.
Why do all religions appear to be man made? Why do all 'gods' appear to be nothing more than men with super powers?
Simplest answer that explains the facts, and therefore most likely to be true: gods ARE man made.
Rationalization: gods APPEAR man made because we suck at describing them.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Read some Spinoza 500 words will not do your question justice.
A better question than the ones you ask maybe
what themes are universal in attempting to understand God?
Which of these are viable?
Which of these Improve our understanding of the whole of our existance?
Notice before we agreed that nature programs truths into us.
Why does this happen?
Is self the ultimate goal of existance?
Am I part of something greater than just myself?
squitmaa 3 years ago
"Notice before we agreed that nature programs truths into us."
Where in the hell did we agree that? I could spent 10 comments covering everything that's wrong with that statement, but you still haven't responded to any of my previous comments, so I won't waste my breath.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Certainly it appears there is a big gap between what I am arguing and what you are arguing. I have given you a few sources in comments to help bridge the gap from my side. I would be happy to read a few of your sources. Mabey if we have a better understanding source of each others arguement we would stuggle less with each others language.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"I would be happy to read a few of your sources."
Why is that necessary? I'm arguing using logic and well established facts. Or are you one of those nut jobs who denies facts so you so you can believe a 6000 year old Earth?
I don't need to let somebody else do my arguing for me, because I understand the issues well enough to do it myself.
"we would stuggle less with each others language."
I'm not struggling with your language in the slightest.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
you are certainly missunderstanding my language or you would not be grouping my opinions in there with those of "Kent Hovind". I am not a fundimentalist christian. You are arguing against those guys. I doubt you knkow of Spinoza, Tolle, or Tillich. Your trying to fit a circle through a square. The pieces don't match. You are attacking a point of view I do not posess. I am tired of your Ad-hom attacks. Open your eyes. Learn to tell the differnce.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"you are certainly missunderstanding my language or you would not be grouping my opinions in there with those of 'Kent Hovind'"
Are you incapable of actually quoting me and responding specifically, in your own words, to anything I've said? Why the hell do you keep referencing Kent Hovind? I never mentioned him.
"I am not a fundimentalist christian. You are arguing against those guys."
I'm arguing against SPECIFIC THINGS YOU SAID, which I quoted directly.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
For instance, you made some clueless statements about the relationship between abiogensis and evolution, which I corrected. Rather than respond, you simply ditched that line of reasoning, throw out 10 more questions, tell me to read X, accuse me of lumping you in with Y, etc. It's a 'shit shoveling' strategy; winning a debate by attrition.
I prefer actual discourse, where you respond factually and/or logically to my statements, directly, in your own words, just as I have been doing with you.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I missed the Abiogenisis comment sorry about that. I have responded to it. Furth If you continue to heap "shit" accusations on my arguement, I have no choice but to shovel. You and I both have better things to do with our time than shovel shit. I think you will agree with me there.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"You and I both have better things to do with our time than shovel shit. I think you will agree with me there."
Agreed. ;)
Note, I don't bother trying to discuss anything with nuts like VenomFangX, because they are completely irrational. It's pointless. I felt compelled to respond to your video because you seem genuinely thoughtful, capable of appreciating a logical argument. If only you could let go of your forgone conclusions when evaluating the evidence. ;)
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Taking a part of a quote and applying a arguement used to attack fundimentalism is not the same as understand the whole of a statement and responding to the statement. You are nit picking a few words, not actual ideas. I keep mentioning Hovind to point out that I am not a young earth creationist, So far you have failed to notice this. Your battling a straw man that I didn't create. and attacking me for ideas I have not expressed.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"Your battling a straw man"
A few direct quotes I responded to:
"religion proves what religions proves"
"many scientists have faith in abiogenisis"
"nature points in the direction of a God"
"Science works with faith. It usually uses the term theory."
"How could purely random force bring something so beautiful as consciousness about"
I mischaracterized NONE of these statements. Rather than support them, you ditch them in favor of a new lines of spurious reasoning. You win by wearing me out.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"o unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Is a statement made by many faiths. If we apply this statement in the natural world we see it to be true. This statement historically came from contemplation of "a higher power". It points us towards a higher purpose. It helps us to better understand the meaning of the religious word Love.
Why do we love?
That should help you with the statements above, also it should simplify the questions I asked earlier.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you [..] we see it to be true"
First, even if it was a good idea, it's not an objective 'truth' like the speed of light; it's a value judgment, and therefore inherently subjective.
Second, it's not even a good idea. A far more moral guideline would be to "Do unto others as THEY WOULD HAVE YOU DO UNTO THEM."
Finally, this 'rule' is naturally derived from empathy, our capacity to see from another's perspective, which has tremendous survival value.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
1st why place no value on subjective truth. Most of our truths started as subjectively. Over time we work to get them closer to something that could be concidered objective. We know very few completely objective truths.
2nd Excellent job of attempting to take a bit of subjectivity out of the christian statement. You might be onto something.
Finally is survival value really the purpose of empathy. If so why would a man jump on a grenade to save his comrade?
squitmaa 3 years ago
"why place no value on subjective truth"
That's a profoundly ironic coming from a theist.
Subjective truths are monumentally important to humans.
Objectively, we are a vanishingly thin layer of surface scum on a dust mote. Insignificant. When the Sun becomes a red giant and steriles the Earth, it won't care, the Universe won't care. BUT WE WILL. WE MATTER TO US. Our value is not an objective trait of the Universe like the speed of light, but that doesn't make it ANY less important to us.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"is survival value really the purpose of empathy"
Of course it is! We're the latest in a 3.5 BILLION YEAR CHAIN of survivors. Core features like empathy have survival value almost by definition.
The capacity to put yourself in someone's shoes, to see a situation from their perspective, is a HUGELY valuable and versatile adaptation. It facilitates communication, compassion, AND improves the ability to deceive, out-maneuver peers in social situations, and out-smart opponents in battle.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"Why do we love?"
Because caring for your young, and your tribe, has TREMENDOUS survival value. Our predecessors who didn't, died. We remain. That's how natural selection works.
I would die to save either of my children. There's an overwhelming attachment that takes place which no non-parent can understand. It's a profound experience subjectively, but objectively it's merely a biological mechanism. It can fail, and sometimes does, especially with mothers suffering postpartum depression.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
My wife is currently working through postpartum depression. She worries about being able to protect the baby and she worries that excess time spent with the child will cause her to loose contact with friends. Neither responce is a failure in my wife's ability to love. Infact her ability to love puts her in the situation.
I would say we love each other because we are all connected by something greater than self. This is evident, and it is the core of understanding devinity.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"My wife is currently working through postpartum depression [...] Neither responce is a failure in my wife's ability to love"
I didn't say postpartum depression (which my wife had, too) causes attachment failure, I said it CAN be a cause. It was an off hand-example, not even relevant to my point. Yet you single it out for refutation, using anecdotal evidence, sample size: 1. *lol*
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
It appears that we need to determine relevance for subjective experience in life. Love is certainly a subjective experience, it can not be objectively defined. Does this mean love does not exist?
squitmaa 3 years ago
"Love is certainly a subjective experience, it can not be objectively defined. Does this mean love does not exist?"
Of course it can be objectively defined (see: dictionary).
As for subjective experiences 'existing', I don't know what to make of that question, given that I just wrote 500 characters about how important subjective reality is to humans.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"we love each other because we are all connected by something greater than self"
But *what*? What "something"? A magic alien? A cheese danish? What is it? Why is there no evidence of a 'greater than self' entity?
The evolutionary explanation is simple, logical, fits all available evidence, fits well supported theory, and significantly, doesn't require you to postulate an invisible, supernatural 'greater than self' entity/field/force/being/whatever.
"This is evident"
But it's *not*.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I would say that love is one evidence. It is clear to me that this connection is deeper than your mechanical explanation. Its complexity is more than a simple genetic program. However I admit that I can not get much past that point at this time. Does that mean I should stop pursuit? I don't think so for know I call it something. because that is the simplest answer (occam's razor). Many call this something God. I often use the word "God" because the majority understand my meaning.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"It is clear to me that this connection is deeper than your mechanical explanation."
If it's so "clear", why can't you articulate it?
Yes, love is deeply meaningful to us *subjectively*, but it's also demonstrably a function of the brain. It can be SLICED right out of your head. Try watching a family member die of Alzheimers. As their brain goes, THEY GO, in direct proportion to cell loss. There is no supernatural source of consciousness; it's a function of the three pound organ in your head.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
You can certainly slice the memory of those you have loved out of a persons head, but that does not mean the love itself is gone. There are certainly mechanical limitations to the brain. Damage to the brain can cause us to loose our presence. However if we look a recoverable injuries to the brain we can see that over time a persons presence and ability to love often returns.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"I would say that love is one evidence."
More circular reasoning.
You: "We love each other because we are all connected by something greater than self".
Me: "Why is there no evidence of a 'greater than self' entity?"
You: "I would say that love is one evidence."
So, love is evidence that love is caused by an extra-human force...
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I admit this statement came out somewhat circular. Let me clairify my premise.
Love is proof that there is a "higher power" than self. Self has limitations, it will die. If the body is injured so is self. However the the love of a persons life, weather it be for work or family, or fellow man. Will continue. Together this act of love propels all the progress you spoke about in earlier comments. On occation it is misguided. However overall We see possitive results from love.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"but that does not mean the love itself is gone"
Because it lingers around like magic pixie dust, right?
"Love is proof that there is a 'higher power' than self."
Obviously when you use the word 'proof' you mean that in the *religious* sense, which is basically "Hey, sounds good to me, makes me happy, must be true!"
"the love of a persons life, weather it be for work or family, or fellow man. Will continue."
Fuzzy headed nonsense. You're conflating the emotion with acts inspired by it.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
But if you're *asking* for reading material, I would recommend The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. It's a thoughtful and sympathetic investigation into a wide range of human beliefs (Sagan is far more kinder to religion than I am) and one of the best written explanations of what science *is* (i.e. not a body of facts or religion, as you seem to believe, as evidenced by your 'sliding scale' analogy at the start of this video).
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I love Carl Sagan. I've actually talked about him in a video or two. He's a great guy. I will definitely put his book on my to do list.
squitmaa 3 years ago
Humans believe in gods, ghost, souls, auras, chi, astrology, numerology, phrenology, palmistry, voodoo, UFOs, ESP, pyramid power, magnetic healing, and MUCH, MUCH MORE.
Science is not a body of knowledge, it is A METHOD for overcoming our innate capacity to believe bullshit. It relies on skeptical peer review of evidence, reproducibility of results, etc. Deciding what's real and what's not by how HAPPY something makes you feel, or what PURPOSE it gives your life, is ANTITHETICAL to science.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I am aware that science answeres answers how question and not why questions. It is intersting that the nature of humans is to start with the question why. We start asking this question almost as soon as we can communicate. Why is at the core of our being. When a child asks us "why do we use the scientific method?". We explain to them the purpose. If it had no purpose we would not use it. Purpose has nothing to do with what makes us happy, it has to do with why something works.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"Purpose has nothing to do with what makes us happy, it has to do with why something works."
Sure it does. You NEED us to have a 'higher' purpose, because it makes you unhappy to think we don't have one.
Biologically, we have EXACTLY ONE purpose: reproduce. That's it. In fact, once we're done reproducing, nature is done with us, which is why we begin the decline toward death so shortly after reaching reproductive age. Any other purpose we make for ourselves.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"I am aware that science answeres answers how question and not why questions."
Science answers HOW questions by answering WHY questions.
HOW do apples fall? On Earth, they accelerate at ~9.8 m/s until they reach terminal velocity (a function of air density) and/or hit the ground, whichever comes first.
WHY do apples fall? Not enough room to explain ;) (the spacetime they inhabit is not uniform, because of the Earth's mass, so the apple's future lies in the center of the Earth...)
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
The apple falls because it has to due to a variety of force this is still a how. after that we get to the Why.
Why does apple fall? because the tree is programed to reproduce.
Why reproduce? To continue life.
Why continue life? Because I want to live? Why do I want to live? because I am programed to reproduce.
Why am I programed to reproduce? To continue life.
It would appear that the nature of this problem is certainly circular.
Is there an solid scientific answers to why? No.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"It would appear that the nature of this problem is certainly circular."
No it's not. The problem is merely that you think nature requires purpose. It doesn't. Matter forms self replicating forms because it can, just as it collects into balls of gas called stars because it can. There is no purpose to it.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I Think you pretty much proved my point here (about science). Your answer adresses the how of existance very well, but it doesn't come close to adressing why. You are claiming that the ultimate question to why does not exist. This goes against the essence of human nature. This was the point I made.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"You are claiming that the ultimate question to why does not exist."
No, the question exists. The answer does not, or at least, the it is currently not accessible to us.
Virtually EVERYTHING previously attributed to gods -- wind rain, death, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. -- is now know to be natural. Continuing to fill in holes in our scientific knowledge with "God did it" spackle is embarrassing. It neglects the ABYSMAL failure rate of such explanations (virtually 100%).
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Notice the same people you accuse of making the "God did it" falacy are also the ones who searched and found the better explanations. God did it should never be a final answer. Futher notice that scientific explanation has still only answered the how of these phenomina. The why to any of these questions could still be God. Once again read Spinoza.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"Notice the same people you accuse of making the 'God did it' falacy are also the ones who searched and found the better explanations."
Huh? Who are you talking about? Religion hasn't found ANY of the better explanations, science did.
"God did it should never be a final answer."
If you're a Christian, it HAS to be. You have no choice, short of not being a Christian an more.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"The why to any of these questions could still be God."
You have yet to establish that the "why" question even HAS an answer. There may be NO "why". So you're putting the cart before the horse when you not only assume there IS a "why", but that reason for is a magic alien. And of course, then you have to explain "why" the magic space alien is here in the first place.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
So because things are beautiful that means there is some greater meaning?
Why not simply see beauty as an evolutionary adaption? It's a way to assign preferences to an emotion. Is it random chance that people tend to think places beautiful to live are close to water? It seems more highly likely that we are hard-wired to understand the benefits of living near water and turn that into an attractive emotion.
zoobiewa 3 years ago 2
"So because things are beautiful that means there is some greater meaning?"
Right. Theists reverse cause and effect. They think the Earth was made to fit us, when the evidence shows we evolved to fit the Earth. For instance, blue is the most common favorite color. Not because God made us like blue, then made the sky blue to please us, but because WE EVOLVED ON A PLANET WITH BLUE SKY (an accident of atmospheric composition).
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"we are hard-wired to understand the benefits of living near water"
Aye. Our ancestors who didn't enjoy living next to water were less likely to reproduce.
Basically, everything makes perfect sense when seen within the framework of evolution (such as why virtually every human culture is preoccupied with sex and violence), but requires MOUNTAINS of laborious rationalizations to make any sense as a 'perfect creation' of an all powerful super being (whatever the heck that being IS, anyway).
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Certainly man fails when it comes to defining God. On top of that the term perfect should really only be used for singular aplications. Men like Kent Hovind, in my opinion, are misguided. It is foolish to dictated what we learn through the looking glass of what we believe, however it is not foolish to redifine are faith as we learn. The process of learning does not erase all notions of devinity, only the ones that are not infact devine.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"however it is not foolish to redifine are faith as we learn"
If your faith requires evidence, or can be modified by evidence, it's not really faith, is it? In other words, if you have EVIDENCE of something, it NO LONGER REQUIRES FAITH. It exits the realm of religion and enters the realm of science.
The whole notion of 'faith' is antithetical to science.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
Science works with faith. It usually uses the term theory. A good theory is very likely, infact almost definite. However we still admit to holes in what we know. In science it is ok to change opinions about faith-theory as our knowledge changes. Many would say the same should be true with religion.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"In science it is ok to change opinions about faith-theory as our knowledge changes. Many would say the same should be true with religion."
It's not 'ok' in science, it's REQUIRED.
In science, YOU START WITH THE FACTS. Theories must explain the facts. If a fact doesn't fit, the theory MUST be revised.
In religion, you START WITH THE THEORY (e.g. God created the Universe). If a fact doesn't fit, you CAN'T revise the theory, so you just come up with desperate and convoluted rationalizations.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
You are defining christian science as explained by fellows like Kent Hovind. This not religion. All faiths that survive over time change with modern understanding. Even the roman catholic church has yielded to scientific understanding (flat earth) and more human social structures (abolition of slavery). Change happens in religion.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"No if Abiogenisis is proven to be a faulty theory much of current evolutionary theory will change."
Sorry, bro, but that's ignorant. Abiogenesis = origin of lire. Evolution = development of complex life. If it turns out life was created by an alien name Fred, rather than abiogenesis, that changes nothing about evolution
Evolution is a fact just like atoms and gravity. Evolutionary *theory* is like atomic theory, an explanatory framework that attempts to show how the evolution *works*.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
"Science works with faith. It usually uses the term theory."
The word 'theory' does not imply uncertainty in science. When we talk about atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc. it doesn't suggest uncertain about the existence of atoms, gravity, germs, or evolution. A theory is an explanatory framework for established facts.
More importantly, scientists do NOT accept theories on 'faith'.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
If we take for example evolutionary theory. We are sure much of it is true, however we theorize on topics like say Abiogenisis. Is Abiogenisis tested? No if Abiogenisis is proven to be a faulty theory much of current evolutionary theory will change. So do many scientists have faith in abiogenisis for the time being or not?
squitmaa 3 years ago
"do many scientists have faith in abiogenisis for the time being"
It's not faith, abiogenesis is SUGGESTED BY THE EVIDENCE. The oldest fossils (3.5 billion years old) are extremely simple life forms. We know life began in some simpler form before then. We know natural mechanisms produce organic molecules. That life is natural, LIKE EVERY OTHER KNOWN PHENOMENON IN THE UNIVERSE, is the simplest explanation by far, so Occam's Razor selects for it.
"God did it" is a far more complicated theory.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I see I missed this one. Sorry about that.
Abiogenisis is the best explanation of those that we have. That does not mean we have all the the explanations. Abiogenisis is a good theory. My point is only that it is untested. Hence for know we have faith in the threory, but we know our faith in it is subject to change. It is good to continue testing the theory, it is not a good idea to throw it away because we don't have all the pieces. This is my point.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"My point is only that it is untested. Hence for now we have faith"
Faith
n.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The theory of abiogenesis is LOGICALLY DERIVED FROM MATERIAL EVIDENCE, so despite being untested, it is NOT faith.
There is NO EVIDENCE of God, and it creates more logical paradoxes than time travel, so it REQUIRES faith. Believe is entirely emotional: it feels good, gives us purpose, allows for justice, provides immortality, security, love, etc.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I notice you skipped to definition 2.
Faith n. definition 1. is confidence or trust in a person or thing.
There is certainly an act of faith in the scientific method. according to the primary definition. At the very least science has faith in the ability of Logic as a means for determinining truth.
To clairify the term faith I think you are using is better defined as "blind faith". I, like yourself, don't see merit in blind faith.
squitmaa 3 years ago
"I notice you skipped to definition 2"
I explicitly clarified WHICH meaning I was using to avoid these silly semantics games. You were CLEARLY using definition #2 when you referred to believing in abiogenesis *DESPITE LACK OF TESTING* as "faith". To claim you merely meant strong belief, irrespective of evidence, is disingenuous.
Yes, both theist and scientists have strong beliefs, but scientific beliefs are (1) supported by EVIDENCE AND LOGIC, and (2) subject to radical alteration.
ReductioAdAbsurdum 3 years ago
I will agree with you that people change there mind about science much faster than they do about God. Of course most have a stronger emotional tie to religion than they do with science. However this does not negate the fact that the religious mind does change and will continue to. I Think this wraps up the term faith. I will continue in you other comments with the notion of "a higher power"
squitmaa 3 years ago
I accidentally removed your comment about Science has done something, religion has done nothing. Reply annd remove are way to close together. I'll still answer below.
squitmaa 3 years ago
Religion has done plenty. The concept of empathy and love was passed from generation to generation by religion. A higher power is at the core of the begining of the human exploration of philosophy. Not to mention most phylanthropy is done in the name of God.
I could argue for the evils of science (Hiroshema). I could tell you that Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of Death in the US. (Both true) but we both know science and medicine should not be dismissed because of these occurances.
squitmaa 3 years ago